On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 12:31:39PM -0700, Warner Losh wrote: > > On Jan 25, 2013, at 4:31 AM, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 08:41:11AM +0000, David Chisnall wrote: > >> Hi All, > >> > >> In 10.0, the plan is not to ship any GPL'd code, so I'd like to start > >> disconnecting things from the default build, starting with gcc. I've been > >> running a gcc-free system for a while, and I think all of the ports that > >> don't build with clang are now explicitly depending on gcc. Does anyone > >> have strong opinions on when would be a good time for head on x86 and > >> x86-64 to default to not building gcc? > > > > To clarify: there is no plans to not ship any GPLed code for 10.x. > > Instead, there are still plans to ship working 10.x. > > > > Please do not consider the personal opinion as the statement of the project > > policy. > > The goal is to try not to ship GPL'd code in 10. The goal is not to ship 10 > without GPL'd code if that results in a broken system. The goal also as > articulated at different forum, was for Tier 1 systems. Tier 2 and 3 systems > may use GPL code as a fallback if the non-gpl'd code doesn't work on those > platforms. > > That is to say, it is a goal, not an absolute requirement.
All you said is reasonable and quite coincides with what I thought. Unfortunately, it has very tangential relations to what is proposed to do and to the political agenda declared in the message started the thread. I am really tired of the constant struggle against the consumation of the FreeBSD as the test-bed for the pre-alpha quality software. E.g., are we fine with broken C++ runtime in 9 ?
pgp_agmpE4euE.pgp
Description: PGP signature
